D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Vaalingrade]

Roll a save. You didnt spot the contact poison and interacted with it. If you save, then the gloves helped, if you fail, they didnt.

I'm not a fan of this, as it establishes that protective equipment and preventive measures mean nothing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would say that if this is a likely kind of thing to happen in the game... where gear loadout is required to be this specific... then that needs to be communicated to the players, and they need to document every item they have, or otherwise have some means of tracking this stuff.

If I haven't communicated this to the players, then I would cut them some slack. If I have, then we just proceed with the saving throw.

 

[LordEntrails]

Things like going to the bathroom or brushing your teeth are skipped...

Maybe at your table, but a wily mimic is why Morkok the Barbarian became just Mor at our table! (Or Mor the Eunuch for those who dared!)

 

[Voadam]

No. There is no style in which "the player decides" after the fortune test to retcon the fiction.

I don't think that is what was proposed here.

The only fiction was that the unarmored character wearing travelers clothes touched the chest with contact poison on it. No retconning and no fortune test as of yet.

Unbeknownst to an unarmored character and despite the DM's sufficient telegraphing, they touched a chest that has been smeared with a dangerous contact poison. The DM describes the greasy feel of the poison and asks for a Constitution saving throw.

"Wait just a minute!" exclaims the player. "I imagine my character is wearing gloves. They have traveler's clothes on."

It seems genuinely unstated whether the character has gloves on.

So before any saving throw is made they are collectively determining the details of the fiction, whether there are gloves on or not. This fiction will determine whether a saving throw need be made or not.

 

[iserith]

It seems genuinely unstated whether the character has gloves on.

So before any saving throw is made they are collectively determining the details of the fiction, whether there are gloves on or not. This fiction will determine whether a saving throw need be made or not.

Yes, in this case, the player could genuinely be acting under the assumption that traveler's clothes include gloves, even though the rules don't spell that out (to my knowledge). Or the player could know it's not spelled out and, having been presented with a dangerous outcome, wants to make the case that they do or that they otherwise would reasonably have gloves on. The DM has no way of knowing with certainty.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think that is what was proposed here.

The only fiction was that the unarmored character wearing travelers clothes touched the chest with contact poison on it. No retconning...

It's retconning and your own post indicates as much:

"The DM describes the greasy feel of the poison and asks for a Constitution saving throw."

If the player had been wearing gloves the DM would not have necessarily described the feel of the poison or asked for the Constitution save. That is stating that the character has no gloves on. The player now having learned things about the fiction he might not have learned had he been wearing gloves now asks for a retcon of the situation where they are wearing gloves but also have been informed that there is a contact poison present.

It's not incumbent on the GM to retcon unless the player in question can genuinely establish with positive evidence the presence of the gloves. They can do this by rules lawyering (for example if Traveller's Clothing explicitly mention protective gloves) or appeal to their character sheet (something on their character sheet explicitly mentions gloves being worn) or by appeal to prior established fiction ("don't you remember, earlier in the scene I was wearing gloves", or "don't you remember, I said earlier in the campaign I always wore gloves when searching things").

Without this positive evidence, the established fiction of no gloves should stand.

So before any saving throw is made they are collectively determining the details of the fiction, whether there are gloves on or not. This fiction will determine whether a saving throw need be made or not.

The description has been made. The saving throw has been asked for. Now the player wants out of the consequences. I have very little sympathy.

 

[Voadam]

This only works if you are always scrupulous about it. If you remember to ask if they are wearing gloves whenever they propose to touch something, then chances are by the time that we get to the point where there is contact poison on the door knob you don't even need to prompt the player - they'll tell you about the gloves or whether they take them off when they do it.

But if you only bring it up when there is contact poison on the door, then of course they are wearing gloves and you need not bother to ask.

I generally trust my players to describe things like this as they visually conceptualize their character's details.

You can also always do the verbal feint to throw off the actual reason for the question.

"The mechanisms look pretty intricate and small. Before I determine possible disadvantage here, are you wearing gloves as you are fiddling with it? Are they thick gloves or gauntlets that could interfere with manipulating the small parts?"

 

[iserith]

In DDB, it does specifically say what each outfit has except the noble one, whihc just says it's 'in fashion'. None of them have gloves

The Common outfit doesn't have shoes.

"Traveler's Clothes: This set of clothes could consist of boots, a wool skirt or breeches, a sturdy belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), and an ample cloak with a hood."

The "could consist of" leaves it vague.

Out of curiosity about what previous editions of the game did with this, I was doing a little more digging and I see that what Umbran quotes here is actually from D&D 3e PHB, but not D&D 5e. References to "outfit" are also a D&D 3e thing apparently (PHB, pg. 131). Is DDB presenting D&D 3e material as being in D&D 5e?

I couldn't find anything other than magical gloves in D&D 4e.

 

[Voadam]

It's retconning and your own post indicates as much:

"The DM describes the greasy feel of the poison and asks for a Constitution saving throw."

If the player had been wearing gloves the DM would not have necessarily described the feel of the poison or asked for the Constitution save. That is stating that the character has no gloves on.

That is why the players stepped in to say wait, feel? What about gloves?

The DM assumed the player has no gloves so he described the greasy feel when the character touched the chest.

The set up though is there is nothing one way or the other about what the character was wearing. The DM could be mistaken in their assumption about a PC detail.

It can be run different ways but in my opinion preferably this type of thing would be something for the player to decide, not something to be imposed by the DM's narration.

 

[payn]

I'm not a fan of this, as it establishes that protective equipment and preventive measures mean nothing.

Im going with it because I want a consistent ruling. Lets say the next chest has a poison dart. The fighter says Im wearing plate it cant stick me. Then, the trap after that is a spear from the wall and the halfling says their character is too short for it to hit them. Etc..

You have a chance to spot the trap. You then interact with the triggering event and get a save. I'm even willing to let a player burn inspiration to claim gloves, plate, or height for advantage on the save. Thats what im rolling with and it reflects the gear plenty.

Im double ok with that because I doubt the gloves are really intended to protect against contact poison anyways. Likely, they are for weapon/saddle wear, warmth, or even decorative. If a player buys gloves to specifically protect against contact poison, we will review from there.